Sivut kuvina

Prayer has undergone several authorized examinations,

grounds for attributing this report to Bullinger.” It certainly appears from the tract to which Strype was indebted for his information (Discourse of the Troubles at Frankfort, p. 42.), that Bullinger was not the person with whom the report originated, but probably either the Mr. H. or Mr. C. mentioned in the same passage. May we not suppose therefore that it originated either with Horne or Cox, who both corresponded with Bullinger, and would either of them satisfy all the other circumstances of the case ? But whether this supposition be correct or otherwise, there are reasons for considering the report as an exaggerated statement rather than as entirely groundless. In this matter, as in many others, the whole question turned on the nature of the sacraments. Martyr, writing to Bullinger in June 1552, after the completion of the second Liturgy, says, “Reformatio in Anglia ob rem sacramentariam obtineri nequit. Liber tamen rituum ecclesiae ac administrationis sacramentorum est emendatus. An usus sacramentorum gratiam Dei conferat, magnopere inter se disceptant Angli, qui ab operum meritis vix avelli possunt.” (Hess, Catal. p. 60.) This was also the opinion of Hooper, a Lasco, and others of the sacramentaries, who, together with Martyr, were at that time in high repute at the court of Edward, and were members of the commission appointed to act with Cranmer in preparing a code of ecclesiastical law. A Lasco more especially, of whose influence we have already had abundant traces, joined with Bullinger and Calvin in objecting to the use of the surplice, to private baptism, churching of women, the ring in marriage, and other “hurtful and offensive ceremonies” as Calvin afterwards called them. (Calv. Epist. p. 96. Discourse on the Troubles, &c. pp. 29, 43, and 44.) But Cranmer himself was at this time personally attached to the sacramentaries and the divines of Zurich (a Lasco's Letter to Bullinger, Miscell. Groning. vol. IV. p. 470.) : he was even represented, as appears from his answer to Gardiner and his subsequent examination (Works, vol. III. p. 229. IV. p. 97.), to hold extreme Zuinglian opinions, such as a Lasco was known to entertain; and though he drew a clear distinction at the time, he occasionally expressed himself in such words as to give some ground for the suspicion (Works, vol. III. pp. 38.49. 544. 554. Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. II. part ii. p. 196): he was actually corresponding with Melancthon, Bullinger, and Cal. vin, to obtain their assistance in drawing up a joint confession of faith, and declaration as to the nature of the two sacraments, knowing, as he must have known, that in order to satisfy them, it would be

[ocr errors]

and some few changes" of importance have been made in consequence: but in all essential points it continues the same. There have always been, and probably will always

necessary to make further alterations in the English Liturgy (Cranm. Works, vol. I. p. 346.); and though he pronounced the revised Liturgy to be “more perfect and according to God's word than any other doctrine that hath been used these thousand years” (Works, vol. IV. p. 1.), yet we may infer that he was not satisfied with it in all respects, from the order of council which was issued soon afterwards in explanation of the kneeling at the communion. (Strype, Cranm. vol. I. p. 416.) His sentiments, devoted as he was to the cause of moderation and the most comprehensive form of church union, may, I think, be fairly expressed in the words of Cox (himself a commissioner, and possessing the confidence of the king and of Cranmer), in a letter which he wrote to Bullinger in May 1551, on the subject of the forthcoming Liturgy. “Salubre et sanum tuum consilium in ecclesiae Dei reformatione eo libentius amplector, quod cum fide mea, qua me benignus Dominus in hisce rebus donavit, per omnia consentis. Ego enim existimo in ecclesia omnia debere esse pura simplicia et ab hujus mundi elementis et pompis longe alienissima. Sed in hac nostra ecclesia ego et eruditione et authoritate infirmus, quid possum praestare 2 Tantum conari praesulibus nostris eandem mecum mentem et fidem optare possum et Domino interim negotii sui curam et eventum committere.” (Strype, Mem. vol. I. part i. p. 533.) Whether this report had any influence on the deliberations of the distracted church at Frankfort, is not stated ; but this is certain, that the two extreme parties, with Knox and Whittingham as the leaders on the one side, and Horne and Chambers on the other, were compelled to reside elsewhere, and that the remainder, constituting the largest body of the three, with whom moreover Cox himself appears to have coincided, (Strype, Grindal, pp. 15. 17.) adopted the following rule of discipline : “We observe and keep the form and order of the ministration of the sacraments and common prayer, as it is set forth by the authority of the blessed king Edward, of famous memory, in the last book of the English service: whereof notwithstanding, in the respect of times and places and other circumstances, certain rites and ceremonies appointed in the said book, as things indifferent, may be left out, as we at this present do.” (Discourse, &c. p. 99.) * Such are the restoration of the form of words originally addressed to communicants, uniting it with the words that had been substituted

continue, two opposite parties, who though devotedly attached to the doctrines of the church, have sought for a new revision of the Liturgy; the one, as was the case at the beginning of the last century", desiring that the prayers of consecration and oblation should be restored, and the words “militant here in earth” should be expunged; the other complaining that the rights of conscience and of Christian liberty were invaded, and the means of religious usefulness curtailed. Happy is it for the church that there has always been between these opposite parties a much larger body of worshippers, who have used their Book of Common Prayer with undisturbed devotion, offering thanks to God continually for his unspeakable gift. It only remains that I should describe the plan which has been adopted in this comparison of the two Liturgies. Where they differ from each other they are printed in parallel columns, the older Liturgy being always placed to the left of the reader. Where they agree, the portions, so common to them both, are printed across the whole of the page, the Liturgy of 1549 being taken as the text, and any small variations in the copy of 1552 being noticed below. The exact order in which the several portions of the two Books occur, will be seen in their respective tables of contents, and it will be found that it is not the same in both. In this edition it has been

for it in the second Liturgy; and the addition of certain prayers and thanksgivings, including the prayers for the parliament and for all conditions of men, and the general thanksgiving. The former change was made in the reign of Elizabeth, the latter in that of Charles the Second. b See “The Christian Priesthood asserted,” by Hickes; “The Unbloody Sacrifice,” by Johnson; and tracts entitled, “Reasons for restoring some Prayers and Directions,” &c.

necessary to disturb that order in several instances, for the purpose of placing the corresponding portions side by side. The order of the first Liturgy being observed throughout, the two portions entitled, “Of ceremonies, why some be abolished and some retained,” and “The Litany,” the position of which had been altered in the second Liturgy, are here placed in both cases, for the sake of direct collation, in the order in which they occurred originally.

The Book of 1549 is printed after a copy bequeathed to the university by Mr. Douce, and preserved in the Bodleian Library. That the edition of May was the first, may be asserted in the words of the following note, written by Mr. Douce in the margin of his copy of Ames. “Out of the seven editions printed in 1549 this appears to be the first, and in all respects the editio princeps of the Common Prayer; notwithstanding any objection that may be taken to the date by “those who do not understand it.”

• Mr. D. is here referring to the edition bearing date “the seventh day of March, 1549,” and to the edition of Grafton, “Mense Martii, 1549;” which date was probably according to the ecclesiastical style of those times, and is now properly described as the year 1550. This at least may be asserted, that between the time when the act of parliament was passed and the beginning of March, there was not a sufficient interval for the printing of so large a volume. It must, however, be admitted, that if Whitchurch followed the ecclesiastical style in this instance, it was not followed uniformly in all like cases; for the Order of the communion which was printed by Grafton in the second year of Edward's reign, and on the 8th of March, 1548, according to the new style, bears that date, and not the date 1547, in the copy belonging to Dr. Routh; although the copy which Ames consulted, is described by him as dated 1547. Of Grafton's Common Prayer, “Mense Martii,” Dr. Dibdin says. (Typ. Ant. vol. III. p. 454.) “There are varieties in the text, as well as in the colophon. Indeed it is rarely that three copies are found alike.” [See note A.]

The "Book of 1552 is also printed after a copy preserved in the same library.

The order of the communion is printed after a copy of the original in the possession of the rev. Dr. Routh This book is exceedingly rare: there is no copy of it either in the British Museum or the Bodleian. It has, however, been several times reprinted, and may be found in bishop Sparrow's Collection, in L’Estrange's Alliance of Divine Offices, and in Wilkins' Concilia.

d There are four copies of this book in the Bodleian, two by Whit. church, and two by Grafton, all of the year 1552, and of different impressions. Of the two copies by Whitchurch, corresponding exactly in title and colophon, even to very minute particulars, the one which has been followed in this reprint, omits the act for the “uniformitie of common prayer,” inserted in all the others immediately after the calendar. It has, however, the 100th Psalm, or Jubilate, in the morning service, and the 98th and 67th Psalms in the evening service, printed at full length; whereas in the other copy by Whitchurch they are only noticed by way of reference in the rubric. It has no list of errors, or account of prices; whereas in the other copy is a list of “faultes escaped,” thirteen in number (seven of which are printed correctly in the copy used for this reprint), together with the following notice: “The prices of this booke. This boke is to be sold by the imprinter in queres for 2 shillinges and 6 pence, and not aboue. Bound in parchment or forel, for 3 shillinges 4 pence, and not aboue. And bound in leather, in paper bordes, or claspes, for 4 shillinges, and not aboue. And at the nexte impression, the imprinter leauing out the fourme of makynge and consecratynge of ArcheBisshops, Bisshops, Priestes, and Deacons, shal sell the sayd boke in queres, for 2 shillinges, and not aboue. And bound in forell, for 2 shillinges 8 pence, and not aboue. And bounde in leather, in paste boordes, or claspes, for 3 shillinges 4 pence, and not aboue.”

The two copies by Grafton both bear date “Mense Augusti, anno Domini 1552,” although it is evident, from differences frequently occurring, and from a list of thirty “faultes escaped” in the one, many of which errors do not exist in the other, that they are of different impressions. They are both foliated, and contain the same notice of prices which has been printed above. [See note B.]

« EdellinenJatka »